For you who still say Global Warming is a Hoax . . .

The tundra ice is melting. And up is down, and left is right, and wet is dry, and cold is hot, the sun circles the earth, the earth is flat, and per the new Trump appointed director of the EPA, pesticides are good for you. See the link below.

Climate is changing. The deniers only have to look out over my back deck to see the extreme swings in weather we have been experiencing for the last twenty years which the scientist have predicted with certainty. It will get worse. No serious person denies climate change. Serious people may debate the best method to deal with the consequences of climate change, but the deniers who say that global ice is growing and that last winter was cold is just mind numbing stupid and not worthy of even getting upset as they are simple flat earth believers who have a political agenda to allow oil and gas to get further subsidy, low lease rates on public land, and fight vehicle cafe mileage improvements while renewable energy is making leaps and bound improvements.

2seaoat wrote: The deniers only have to look out over my back deck to see the extreme swings in weather we have been experiencing for the last twenty years which the scientist have predicted with certainty.

I believe you, but I'd like to see for myself. Would you post your address so I can drop by for a look? Thank you,

Its results and methods have quickly been incorporated into every major surface-based global temperature database, just in time to influence the Paris climate summit in December.

The paper, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” formally published on June 26, is first authored by Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climate Data Center).

Why is this one paper so important? Why is the recalibration of ocean surface temperatures questioned?

Since 2005, skeptics have pointed out that the rate of increase in global temperatures since 1997 has dropped to near zero, even though human CO2 emissions have risen fully 25 percent and are at their highest levels ever. Skeptics dubbed the slowdown “the pause.”

For about a decade, human-caused global warming (AGW) theorists denied that a slowdown in warming had occurred. AGW theorists correctly argued that it would take at least a decade for any slowdown documented in the temperature record to become statistically significant.

Finally, in late 2013, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged the existence of the pause, renaming it a “hiatus” from global warming. Since then, at least 50 papers have appeared in the scientific literature explaining where the missing heat went.

The existence of a 17-year, unanticipated “hiatus” in the face of rapidly increasing CO2 emissions is jeopardizing the AGW theory. Fifty different concocted explanations for the unexpected, unpredicted disappearance of warming doesn’t help.

The graph above compares the re-analyzed dataset with the previous version (ERSSTv3b). The re-analyzed version creates global warming after 2004 where little had previously existed. In one fell swoop, the “hiatus” just disappears.

Argo array of active floats, color coded by country, as of April 2015. Credit: WikipediaArgo array of active floats, color coded by country, as of April 2015. Credit: WikipediaThe main reason for that is that Karl added 0.12°C to all Argo buoy temperature readings and gave them added weighting when calculating the re-analyzed dataset, according to a critique of Karl’s paper by Dr. Ross McKitrick.

The Argo array and ship-based temperature measurements are in disagreement. Argo’s temperatures are colder than ship-based temperatures and show no sea surface temperature increases since its earliest measurements began. Karl’s change to Argo data increases global temperatures after 2004, when Argo buoys started showing up in large numbers. The Argo network went fully operational in late 2007 with 3,000 floats in place.

The international Argo array is a wonder of modern climate science technology. It consists of nearly 3,900 specially designed buoys distributed in oceans all over the world. Each self-contained robotic buoy records ocean temperature, salinity and ocean drift to a depth of 6,500 feet. They normally free float at 3,000 feet. Every 10 days they dive and then return to the surface, taking measurements all along the way. Once surfaced, they automatically upload their collected data via satellite into a global database.

Argo is specifically designed for climate science. Ship-based measurements are not. Ships have taken measurements in many different ways over the years. Most modern-day water temperature readings from ships are taken from boiler room water intakes not designed for rigorous scientific purposes. Those have a built-in heat bias.

Instead of logically recalibrating the less reliable ship-based data to match the Argo data, Karl alters the Argo data to match the ship-based measurements.

It’s hard to see visually in the above ERSST comparison, but trend analysis shows older temperature data — before 1976 — were adjusted slightly downward, while data were adjusted upward after 2004 in the re-analysis. Measurements after 1976 are also adjusted upward. That conveniently increases the slope of global warming in favor of AGW theory.

The Karl paper came out in June. In less than two months, its results and methods have been incorporated into virtually all major ground-based global temperature databases.

The Argo array itself shows no warming since 1997. Satellite-based global sea surface data, unaffected by Karl’s results, show no warming in the lower troposphere since 1997. They all support the existence of the hiatus.

Clearly, either Argo and the satellites are wrong, or Karl’s re-analysis is wrong. The hiatus is either real or it is not.

Have you ever wondered why each and every climate event seems to fit the narrative? Read those articles... try to do so with an open mind. It doesn't require a science degree to absorb the inconsistencies and subterfuge.

1991: Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.[3]

1883: The explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887–1888 included powerful blizzards.[4] Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.

1815: The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the "Year Without a Summer" of 1816.

1783: A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783[5] blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island's livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the Icelandic population. Northern hemisphere temperatures dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption. However Franklin's proposal has been questioned.[6]

1600: The Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601–1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany, wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.[7]

1315-1317: The Great Famine of 1315–1317 in Europe may have been precipitated by a volcanic event,[8] perhaps that of Mount Tarawera, New Zealand, lasting about five years.[9]

1257: The 1257 Samalas eruption in Indonesia. The eruption left behind a large caldera next to Rinjani, with Lake Segara Anak inside it.[10] This eruption probably had a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7, making it one of the largest eruptions of the current Holocene epoch. An examination of ice cores showed a large spike in sulfate deposition around 1257. This was strong evidence of a large eruption having occurred somewhere in the world. In 2013, scientists proved that the eruption occurred at Mount Samalas. This eruption had four distinct phases, alternately creating eruption columns reaching tens of kilometres into the atmosphere and pyroclastic flows burying large parts of Lombok Island. The flows destroyed human habitations, including the city of Pamatan. Ash from the eruption fell as far away as Java Island. The volcano deposited more than 10 cubic kilometres (2.4 cu mi) of material. The eruption was witnessed by people who recorded it on palm leaves, the Babad Lombok. Later volcanic activity created additional volcanic centres in the caldera, including the Barujari cone that remains active. The aerosols injected into the atmosphere reduced the solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, which cooled the atmosphere for several years and led to famines and crop failures in Europe and elsewhere, although the exact scale of the temperature anomalies and their consequences is still debated. It is possible that the eruption helped trigger the Little Ice Age.

535: The extreme weather events of 535–536 are most likely linked to a volcanic eruption. The latest theorised explanation is the Tierra Blanca Joven (TBJ) eruption of the Ilopango caldera in central El Salvador.[11]

Effects on Life

The causes of the population bottleneck – a sharp decrease in a species' population, immediately followed by a period of great genetic divergence (differentiation) among survivors – is attributed to volcanic winters by some researchers. Such events may diminish populations to "levels low enough for evolutionary changes, which occur much faster in small populations, to produce rapid population differentiation".[16] With the Lake Toba bottleneck, many species showed massive effects of narrowing of the gene pool, and Toba reduced the human population to between 15,000 and 40,000 or even fewer.[16]

Global warming can actually make colder winters. With the ice caps melting it puts more water in the air... and that's basically how air conditioners work.

It causes all kinds of crazy instabilities, some of which don't seem to make sense with "warming." Remember that Day After Tomorrow movie, where New York flash-froze? That was a global warming movie. Basically just turns the weather to chaos.

I know something crazy's going on, because a few weeks ago my apple trees started getting blossoms on them again. Somehow they thought it was spring. I'm hoping that won't throw them off when real spring hits...

zsomething wrote:Global warming can actually make colder winters. With the ice caps melting it puts more water in the air... and that's basically how air conditioners work.

You're exactly... wrong.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The bottom line is, this is a matter of common sense, people. For mankind to believe we can continue, century after century, to spew absolutely phenomenal amounts of gases into the earth's atmosphere and NOT expect a serious effect on our climate, is just plain idiotic, and insanely so.

At the core of science is skepticism. There is no evidence or theory without it. Btw... using "denier" is simply a tactic to hush and hide the agenda from science. It demeans other points of view by associating those with holocaust "deniers". Real science doesn't do that. It welcomes objective inspection and examination.

The damage caused by our addiction to burning fossil fuels will be so widespread that nobody stands to gain

Tue 31 Jul 2018 04.00 EDT Last modified on Tue 31 Jul 2018 06.58 EDT

A global heat map shows how temperatures are soaring across the planet during the summer of 2018. Photograph: Climate Reanalyzer/Climate Change Institute/University of Maine

The year 2018 is on track to be the fourth warmest on record, beaten only by 2016, 2015 and 2017. In other words, we have had the warmest four-year run since we started measuring. According to data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), June 2018 is the 402nd consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th-century average. The UK’s Environmental Audit Committee has warned that we could see summer temperatures reaching 38C by the 2040s, leading to a potential 7,000 heat-related deaths a year.

One hot summer does not a changing climate make, but the trend in the global data is now irrefutable. When Michael Mann published the “hockey stick” graph back in 1998, there was vociferous public pushback, yet the observed temperature rises match what Mann had predicted. Today’s hockey stick graph isn’t a forward projection but a historical record. The world has been getting hotter, and it will continue to do so. The only question now is how much hotter it gets.

The mechanisms behind this are not difficult to understand. Over a period of millions of years, carbon became trapped in deposits under the Earth’s crust, as coal, oil and natural gas. As the great engines of industrialisation came online across the planet, humanity developed an insatiable hunger for this trapped carbon. Burning it powered the machines that drove economic growth and development, which in turn raised the demand for more machines and more carbon. Carbon that took millions of years to trap has been released into the atmosphere at a rate that is, in geological terms, almost instantaneous.

Climate change isn’t happening, they said, and even if it is happening it’s nothing to do with us

We have known about the probable impact that this sudden release of carbon into the atmosphere would have on the Earth’s climate since the middle of the last century. However, we have been unable and unwilling to do anything about it. To pull that carbon out of the ground we created giant corporations whose sole role was to find it, mine it and sell it. Our demand led to vast profits for these companies, and unfathomable riches for the people running them. This meant that when the research showed that our insatiable carbon demand needed to be curbed for the good of the planet, there was a very powerful interest group in place with a vested interest in keeping it going.

We know now that the fossil fuel extraction industry has known about climate change since at least 1977, when James L Black, a scientist at Exxon, gave a presentation to the company’s board detailing his research into global warming. A year later, in 1978, Black would write a memo saying: “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”

But by the time this 10-year window closed in 1988, the energy companies had been pouring money not into reducing carbon but into denying the reality of climate change. Through well-orchestrated media campaigns and lobbying efforts, a standard narrative of denial had been firmly entrenched as common knowledge. Climate change isn’t happening, they said, and even if it is happening it’s nothing to do with us, and even if it is something to do with us it would be too expensive to change it. The fossil fuel lobby managed to convince lawmakers and huge swaths of the broader public that this was a battle between “business” on the one hand, and a coalition of corrupt scientists and hippies on the other.

Oil pumps at a fracking site in CaliforniaFacebook Twitter Pinterest A fracking site in California: energy companies have poured money not into reducing carbon but into denying the reality of climate change. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images

But not all businesses are energy companies. Every business and every person lives on the planet now, where costs will rise because of climate change. A study by the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) working group found that losses due to climate change could reach up to 19% of GDP in some parts of the world by 2030.

For all our talk of climate denial being the “business” position, we’ve strangely ignored the insurance industry, especially the climate research branches of the major reinsurance firms. Swiss Re is part of the ECA working group, and Munich Re’s geo risks research department has been in place since 1973, four years before Black wrote his memo. This is not because reinsurance is some enclave of liberal hippies nestled in the bosom of capitalism, but because their industry, by definition, can’t rely on kicking the can down the road and letting someone else pick up the pieces. If we get floods, famines and droughts leading to mass migration events, they’ll be among the ones paying out.

It was easy to let ourselves believe that what was good for energy companies would be good for us all, because the immediate upsides of the cheap carbon windfall were so compelling. There was no problem that couldn’t be solved by throwing more fossil fuels at it, and the reality of climate change threatened to tell us what it cost. The fossil fuel industry told us that we could take out an interest-only mortgage against the future of the planet and prices would always go up, interest rates would always go down and there would never be a reckoning. We now find ourselves facing repayments on the scale of trillions of dollars. That does not even cover the human costs that these dry figures obscure: the lives lost, the homes flooded, the farms wasted away to drought.

These six species are about to be sacrificed for the oil and gas industryRead more

It is impossible to map the path not taken. Perhaps a commitment to reducing carbon consumption could have spurred innovation in alternative sources of energy. Or maybe the path we are on is an inevitable result of an economic system that cannot stop unless it crashes. We’ve seen the “Minsky cycle” of speculation leading to crash play out time and again in the financial sector; perhaps climate change is a centuries-long Minsky cycle we could never hope to stop. Maybe we are destined to become the civilisational equivalent of Monty Python’s Mr Creosote, a man who gorged himself until he literally exploded.

Regardless of the alternative histories and the might-have-beens, it may be too late to stop it, but we still need to learn an important lesson. If a CEO tells us that it would be bad for business if they weren’t allowed to pump poison into the air and water, then that’s too bad for them: one business is not an economy, and it certainly isn’t a biosphere. We’d have survived the crisis of an oil CEO missing out on his fifth yacht, but many won’t survive the consequences of letting them lead us by the nose into disaster.

What gets me is the people who'll finally admit there's global warming, but think "the science is still out on if people have an impact on it." How dumb can ya get to think they don't?

Take a glass of water, drop so much as a hair in it, and those people aren't gonna want to drink it anymore, and yet they think "we can't prove that humans negatively affect the climate." I don't think humans are the only cause, but we're sure's hell greasing the skids and making the situation worse.

I always want to take 'em to an archaeology class. One way they spot archaeological sites is running remote scans looking for areas with a lot of filth. They can find prehistoric sites where humans lived by the increased amounts of carbon and stuff generated from the way we live. Human beings muck up an environment like you wouldn't believe. We burn things, we generate waste, we create trash-heaps (archaeological treasure troves, those are), we kill things off and leave their corpses and our own around, we cut down trees and vegetation that would help areas clean and fertile, leaving stripped soil behind... we leave major scars you can find thousands of years later, all because we live dirty, do a lot of littering, and decimate. Find a filthy spot, then you've found a city.

There's no way that doesn't play a role in changing the atmosphere, which contributes to the heat index. But people who've been trained to be apologists for the corporations that are killing 'em off just keep their heads in the sand and try to ignore that aspect.

Same shit went on during the Dust Bowl. People said, "You're doing bad farming practices here." They said, "Nuh-uh, they're fine, and anyway, we're making a lot more money this way so shut up!"

Next thing you know, everybody's broke and you've got this happening:

A hundred years later everybody agrees that, yeah, tearing off all the topsoil was a bad idea even if it did help your farming for a couple years... but, damn sure wasn't worth the price everybody paid.

And thus it'll be with this. I don't have any kids and I figure it'll probably hold up for the 40 or so years I may have to still be on the planet, so go ahead, treat the planet like a rental car, see what happens. Maybe your grandkids'll get to work for Immortan Joe for a cup of water a week, which the recruiting videos do make look pretty awesome: